Top Posts

Mitt Romney is going to have a hard time selling his tax plan. Not because it’s a bad plan, it is actually a very good plan which I have enthusiastically endorsed. But it does call for tax cuts and guts special interest group power. It also makes the tax code simpler. I think Reagan would approve of Mitt Romney’s tax plan. Then, Romney came out with his energy plan. I think it is getting harder to deny that Mitt Romney is actually a bold conservative.

Let me contrast Obama and Romney on energy with two pictures. These two pictures show practical economic common sense versus pure ideology. They show why every person concerned about our economic future should vote for Mitt Romney and not Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney’s energy plan is a real all of the above approach. He lets states control the energy resources on federal land within their borders, effectively giving states the choice whether they want jobs, energy independence for their state, and vast economic growth, or they can continue with the failed Obama subsidized green energy idea.

The key to this graphic is the figure in the upper left hand corner. 3.6 million jobs. Of course, that is solely based on the energy sector and doesn’t take into account economic multipliers and the effects of using energy to drop unemployment below 8%, the increased tax revenue involved, or the additional spending power of families who no longer have to pay close to $4 a gallon for gas so that Saudi princes and Libyan terrorists (who Obama tried to befriend) can get rich off of our commutes.

Romney also doesn’t forsake green energy, but includes it as part of his all of the above approach. He also includes increased nuclear energy, which is clean and efficient.

Contrast this with Obama’s rebuttal.

Obama doesn’t like Romney’s energy plan because it would cost 37,000 jobs in the US Wind industry. Can you see what the big problem is here with Obama’s ideology? Romney’s plan would provide 3.6 million jobs. Obama complains that in the process 37,000 wind energy jobs would be lost. Do the math, should we abandon the Romney energy plan to save those 37,000 wind jobs?

Two more key problems with this graphic:

1. Was Obama concerned with saving energy jobs when he cancelled the Keystone Pipeline? The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that Obama’s decision to cancel the Keystone Pipeline cost 250,000 jobs.

2. Notice the verbiage. Obama-Biden supports 75,000 jobs. In other words, Obama’s green energy plan is based on government subsidization of the industry. Instead of the Romney plan that would create 3.6 million private sector jobs supported by private enterprise, Obama wants us to support his government program where taxpayer foot the bill and get 75,000 jobs. That’s a pretty weak rebuttal, Mr. President.

In the meantime, we have already gone through four years of Obama’s energy plan and we know it doesn’t work. We have actual, historical evidence that it doesn’t work. Forget Solyndra for a moment, what about the jobs Obama has created through his green energy initiatives? The Gateway Pundit estimates a pricetag of $4.8 million per permanent job. That isn’t how much each employee makes, that is what the government has spent per new employee. That is unsustainable.

Wouldn’t you prefer a plan where private companies invest the money to hire people to produce energy that actually works and has practical significance for the American consumer? The Obama plan is to take tax dollars to produce energy we don’t use on a large scale so that we are stuck buying our gas from people in the Middle East who don’t particularly like us. I’d much rather buy American. For Obama, the environmental lobby make that an impossibility.

Mitt Romney has proven that he is not just the anti-Obama. He is not just a status quo politician who will keep from making things worse. The Romney-Ryan tax plan and energy plan are not tired RINO talking points. They are bold change.